“ Surely people are not going to sacrifice their power to exercise reason, to evaluate and to question facts, on this altar. Unfortunately, it seems so.”

No way… I see anything I ask yous guys first if I should question or exercise. Then I go to other sites and pretend they are all my own ideas. I could well be a politician.

We have more stuff to question now though. The law is certainly in question everywhere.

I’m not sure who pinned Julian to the cross first, even if it was meant in a good way. Well, good for others.

Danielle,

You said, "Surely people are not going to sacrifice their power to exercise reason and to question facts."

I put it to you that much of the information fed to the general population in the present state of affairs is bunkum - and, therefore, our ability to exercise our judgment in any constructive way has already been compromised.
Wikileaks provides access to verbatim dialogue - not some politically sanitised version thereof...how is that sacrificing our power to exercise reason and to question facts?

Poirot

"Wikileaks provides access to verbatim dialogue - not some politically sanitised version thereof...how is that sacrificing our power to exercise reason and to question facts?"

Unless, of course, verbatim dialogue is also challenged and not accepted as necessarily the true situation. Perspectives and beliefs of politicians has proven wrong in the past. A thoughful person should verify from other sources those things which are significant to them. Also, what a politician states on one particular day, may change dramatically the next ... context is always important.

And surely ... non blindly accept sanitised versions only ...

Wikileaks received considerable donations from large companies. Which ones? Does this protect these companies from scrutiny and disclosure, or provide some other pay off? Does Wikileaks have regulations as to how much in donation/funding some interest can provide. Is there transparency. Large monies always muddy the waters.

Poirot, you are obviously an intelligent person, who values integrity and openness. I do too.

I feel, however, very uncomfortable that people are seeing Wikileaks as a font of truth.
To state a cliche "when something seems too good to be true, it generally is." Wikileaks, by its nature is open to abuse/misinformation. Sources who provide the leaks can not be guaranteed protection. Internationally, we can only get a particular side of an issue ... without full context, and being a snapshot in time.

cont ...

cont ...

Now, of course, parties will not provide open/frank discussion that can be tabled. Much discussion will be "off the record." I remember the latter only too well. Do embassies and related government organisations still have 'scramblers.' I imagine they do, and very high tech at that.

Obviously, people will and, indeed, should make up their own minds as to the value of Wikileaks. As stated in a prior post, I suspect each group will see Wikileaks as confirming the relative position they hold.

At present we have not been privy to anything astounding. Something very astounding, indeed a cause for disbelief, would have to be released to totter a government, indeed make a government vear in a radically different direction. Australian government seems to be a changing of caps.

Various parties have shown public outrage. This would be the expected policy in such circumstances, would it not.

I will not bore OLO on this particular topic any more.

Is Julian Assange, a true Aussie hero? of course he is.......these world Governments are playing with peoples lives......yes yours!

Here are some interesting links.

http://tinyurl.com/25wb4lg

http://tinyurl.com/27vkp9t

http://tinyurl.com/2ansjer

http://tinyurl.com/2da2qkz

Well....they did give us the internet.........yes they did.

Now........Can someone tell me whats the difference between what Hitler did and what we are seeing now?

Dam religion to hell. 2000/6000 years of it and still killing.

The silence of the lambs.

Please tell me when they stop screaming.

BLUE

Thanks for the links Deep Blue; they speak for themselves don't they.
And Poirot couldn't agree more with your synopsis that Wikileaks are verbatim dialogue.

The closest you can get to the truth is watching what actually happened and hearing the reaction of the participants real time as it really happened as per video leaks etc.
You cant get any closer to the truth then actually being there yourself via a Wikileak.

And Danielle I hate to be judgemental but I really think that your arguments for the most part have been the closest thing to pure conjecture in this entire post.

The verbatim dialogue described by Poirot reveals the facts of the moment, your propositions that these displays of whistle blower material have been somehow doctored (if thats what your now suggesting), I think is just plain absurd even diversionary.